To the point

With the whole Howard Dean "fiasco" far behind us we need to realize that the republican party is not in the position to put a presidential candidate that speaks the wishes of the masses (or as I like to say more figuratively, the hoi polloi. Their objective is not to put a great candidate up against a democrat in 2008, it is to find the democrat's weakest link and exploit it to the nth degree.

I found a good post that makes the case for Obama using this same logical fame work. Quite clearly it states,

Obama is more important than just the best Democrat. He is the best PERSON for our country.

The post isn't well written at all, but it is to the point. Quite clearly, it brings up a salon article that even in Frank Luntz poll testing, that republicans are likely to vote for Obama, while other democrats get no support whatsoever. This is incredibly important considering that the Iraq war is probably the issue that will garner the most amount of unity among voters. All the republicans are for it, while most of the public is against it.

The same overzealous, and non sequential, attacks on Dean share an eerie similarity to the repeated, and failed, attacks on Obama. The republicans want it, so they are trying their hardest to create a feud between Clinton and Obama, hoping in the process to taint the clean image of Obama.

I actually agree with Frank Luntz

I know, I know, another video! Sorry about that, but it does tie in to what I want to write in this post. Of all the times over the past couple years that I have written about his misguided "polik speak,"(see www.giantvolcano.com) I do agree with him on this one.

Democrats send way too much time bashing Bush. Its not helping. We know that our positions are shared by more Americans then he values that republicans spout. We have the advantage, yet politicians Like Darcy Burner continue to expose the connection expecting more votes next election season.

How is that going to win over moderate republicans? Simply put, it won't. It hasn't; just look at the 2006 election results. Why is it that the state of Indiana gets three districts to elect a democrat for the first time in over fifty years, yet in a liberal part of the state we still have Reichert as our house representative? They didn't attack Bush, they only stated that they were against the war in Iraq, wanted to raise the minimum wage, create affordable health care, and eliminate political corruption. All of these issues the democrats have the American public's side, yet inept politicians like Burner continue to believe that by simply attacking Bush it will win people over.

It didn't work in 2006, what makes these people think it will work in 2008?